coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Elektrostal in the Moscow Region.
5.  On 27 April 2002 the applicant sued her former employer, a private company, for reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 30 July 2002 the Elektrostal Town Court dismissed the action.  On the same day the applicant lodged before the Moscow Regional Court her statement of appeal against the judgment.
7.  The Moscow Regional Court accepted the statement of appeal and fixed a hearing for 12 September 2002. According to the Government, on 5 September 2002 the Town Court summonsed the parties for the appeal hearing. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the covering letter of 5 September 2002 sent by the Town Court to the Moscow Regional Court and the parties, including the applicant. The letter indicated that the Town Court had sent the case-file to the Regional Court and that the appeal hearing had been fixed for 12 September 2002, at 10.30 a.m. The Government also submitted copies of receipts issued by the local post office on 5 September 2002 showing that it had accepted for delivery eight registered letters from the Town Court.
8.  On 12 September 2002 the Moscow Regional Court, in the presence of the defendant's representative, upheld the judgment of 30 July 2002. The applicant did not attend the hearing. According to her, in the evening of 12 September 2002 she discovered the letter with summonses to the hearing of 12 September 2002 in her post box.
9.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant sued her former employer for provision of free housing. On 21 December 2000 the Elektrostal Town Court dismissed the action. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 6 February 2001
10.  In July 2004 the applicant again sued her former employer for provision of free housing.  On 24 November 2004 the Moscow Regional Court, in the final instance, disallowed the action because the same dispute between the same parties had been already determined by the final judgment of 6 February 2001.
11.  In 2004 the applicant requested the Elektrostal Town Court to quash the judgment of 21 December 2000, re-open the proceedings due to newly-discovered evidence and re-examine her action.  On 26 April 2004 the Moscow Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed request because there was no newly-discovered evidence in the case.
4.  On 1 December 1994 the applicant took up the post of executive director of the Bulgarian Publishers' Association (“the association”). On 30 September 1996 she was dismissed.
5.  On 21 November 1996 the applicant filed an action for wrongful dismissal against the association. She sought reinstatement and damages.
6.  In a judgment of 4 June 1997 the Sofia District Court held that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful. It accordingly ordered her reinstatement and awarded her damages.
7.  On 23 June 1997 the association appealed.
8.  On 26 June 1997 the Sofia District Court instructed the association to pay the court fees for the appeal within a seven‑day time‑limit. These instructions were served on the association on 27 October 1997.
9.  On 28 November 1997 the Sofia District Court discontinued the proceedings, holding that the association had not paid the fees in due time.
10.  The decision to discontinue the proceedings was served on the association on 16 March 1998. On 20 March 1998 it appealed against it to the Sofia City Court, arguing that the fees had in fact been paid on time. On 8 May 1998 the Sofia City Court allowed the appeal, agreeing that the fees had been paid within the specified time-limit. On 25 May 1998 the case was returned to the Sofia District Court for further processing.
11.  On 29 May 1998 the Sofia District Court instructed the association to indicate the grounds of appeal together with the new evidence to be gathered, as well as to present the written evidence on which the appeal was based. These instructions were not served on the association's counsel. According to the applicant, the court's server returned them, noting that the concierge of the building in which the counsel's office was purportedly situated had informed him that the counsel's office was in fact not there. On 1 July 1998 the Sofia District Court ordered the decision to be re‑served on the counsel. It is unclear whether its order was complied with.
12.  On 19 April 1999 the Sofia District Court rescinded its ruling of 29 May 1998 and decided to process the appeal without further particulars by the association. Accordingly, a copy of the appeal was served on the applicant's counsel the same day and on 29 April 1999 the case was sent to the Sofia City Court.
13.  On 18 May 1999 the Sofia City Court instructed the association to specify within fourteen days the grounds of appeal and the evidence to be gathered, as compulsory under an intervening amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the applicant, an attempt to serve these instructions on the association on 27 May 1999 failed, because the court's process server did not find it at the specified address. The instructions were served on 2 May 2000.
14.  On 12 January 2001 the Sofia City Court, finding that the association had not complied with its instructions, discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was served on the applicant on 17 January 2001 and on the association on 5 February 2001. Neither of them appealed against it. Accordingly, the judgment of the Sofia District Court of 4 June 1997 entered into force in February 2001.
5.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Mikhaylovich Petrov was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer.
6.  In 2001 he brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы, hereinafter the “Commission”) for recalculation of his pension as from 1990 to take account of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension.
7.  On 30 April 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's claim, adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.5 and awarded him 84,915.42 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears.
8.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 10 May 2002.
9.  On 3 November 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant.
10.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was informed about the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure.
11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 30 April 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received a copy of the final decision on 13 August 2004.
12.  The new hearing was scheduled for 16 September 2004. The applicant could not attend the hearing, and on 9 September 2004 asked the court to postpone it.
13.  On 24 October 2004 the applicant received a letter from the court, which enclosed a copy of the decision of the Tverskoy District Court of 6 October 2004 by which the applicant's action was left without consideration for his failure to appear twice before the court. The applicant claims that the court did not inform him about the new date of the hearing. The applicant filed an appeal, but, since the time-limit for an appeal was up, the court ignored his petition.
4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the town of Shakhty in the Rostov Region.
5.  On 3 June 2004 the Shakhty Town Court ordered that the Ministry of Finance should pay the applicant 298,650 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 8,420 euros), representing a subvention for buying a flat. On 11 October 2004 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.
6.  Following the institution of enforcement proceedings by the Shakhty Town Division of Bailiffs' Service on 16 November 2004, the Ministry of Finance petitioned the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for a revision of the judgment of 3 June 2004 and a stay in the enforcement proceedings. Those requests were dismissed on 25 April 2006.
7.  On 21 February 2006 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings because it was necessary to send the writ of execution to another division of the bailiffs' service. A copy of that decision and the writ were sent to the Head of the Main Department of the Federal Bailiffs' Service in Moscow. The applicant and the Ministry of Finance were notified of the decision.
8.  According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings were closed because a new procedure for enforcement of court decisions against State bodies had been introduced on 1 January 2006. Under the new procedure the applicant was to submit a writ to the Ministry of Finance, however, she did not do it.
9.  On 23 March 2006 a bailiff of the Second Division of the Tsentralniy District of the Main Department of the Federal Bailiffs' Service in Moscow instituted enforcement proceedings and ordered that the Ministry of Finance should execute the judgment of 3 June 2004 within five days. The bailiff also indicated that the failure to execute the judgment will lead to the imposition of a fine. A copy of that decision was sent to the Ministry of Finance.
10.  On 20 June 2006 the enforcement proceedings were closed because it was “impossible to enforce” the judgment.
11.  The judgment of 3 June 2004, as upheld on appeal on 11 October 2004, remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 3 August 1983 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the expropriated land and this amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place.
6.  Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 5 November 1993 the Küçükçekmece Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate running from the date of the expropriation.
7.  On 5 November 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the commencement date for the calculation of the interest.
8.  On 21 July 1994 Küçükçekmece Civil Court of First Instance confirmed its previous judgment.
9.  On 10 October 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.
10.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated execution proceedings (icra takibi) against the General Directorate of Highways via the Istanbul Bailiff's Office in order to enforce the payment of the compensation awarded by the first instance court.
11.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant was paid 6,846,778,000 Turkish liras (TRL).
12.  On 19 July 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance and requested compensation for the loss sustained as a result of late payment and inflation, pursuant to Article 105 of the Code of Obligations.
13.  On 28 December 1999 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's request. On 12 May 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.
14.  According to the letter dated 5 April 2004 from the Istanbul Bailiff's Office, the General Directorate of Highways still owed TRL 625,000,000 (EUR 384) to the applicant.
15.  Referring to the General Directorate of Highways' letter dated 27 July 2005, the Government claimed that they had paid the total amount due and that the Bailiff's office had struck out the case concerning the enforcement proceedings.
16.  However, in a letter dated 14 October 2005, the Bailiff's office stated that the General Directorate of Highways still owed 652 New Turkish liras to the applicant.
6.  The facts of each case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  Mr Runkee was born in 1938 and lives in Hull.
8.  He married in 1964. He and his wife had three children, born in 1965, 1966 and 1974. On 15 March 1998 his wife died. She had worked full time for eight years until becoming pregnant and had made full social security contributions.
9.  The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife's death and of his intention to claim “widowers' benefits” on 31 March 1998. By a letter dated 16 April 1998, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant that because he was not a woman he was not entitled to widow's benefits. The applicant lodged a statutory appeal against this decision on 1 May 1998, but abandoned it when advised that the appeal was bound to fail.
10.  At the time of his application to the Court, Mr Runkee was in receipt of means-tested statutory benefits, including Income Support and Housing and Council Tax Benefits. Were he a woman, his entitlement to Widow's Pension would have been offset against these benefits, to the extent that, in his present circumstances, he would have received no additional money in respect of Widow's Pension.
11.  Mr White is a United Kingdom national, born in 1942 and living in Warrington.
12.  He married in 1960. He and his wife had two children, one of whom was adopted and born in 1955, the other of whom was born in 1968.
13.  On 8 March 1999 his wife died. She had worked until the birth of her son in 1968 and had made reduced social security contributions.
14.  The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife's death and of his intention to claim “widowers' benefits” on 10 March 1999. On 21 June and 8 September 1999, Angela Eagle, a Minister from the Department of Social Security, wrote to the applicant's Member of Parliament confirming that as a man he was not entitled to claim widows' benefits.
6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in County Down.
7.  His wife died on 16 November 1998, leaving him with three children born in 1993, 1995 and 1998. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 22 December 1998 and was rejected on 23 February 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 April 1999, which was heard and dismissed by the Social Security Tribunal on 20 April 2000.
8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Northern Ireland.
9.  His wife died on 11 June 1996, leaving him with three children born in 1989, 1994 and 1996. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 23 May 1997 and was rejected on 30 November 1998 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 30 November 1998, which was heard and dismissed by the Social Security Tribunal on 20 April 2000.
10.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Belfast.
11.  His wife died on 10 February 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1991 and 1998. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 10 February 2000 and was rejected on 14 April 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
3.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ankara. At the time of the events, he was the provincial leader of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi - People's Democracy Party) in Ankara.
4.  On 18 November 1998 the military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention in absentia. According to the detention order, the applicant was suspected of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
5.  On 19 November 1998 police officers conducted a search in the Ankara office of HADEP and the applicant was taken into police custody. In the search and arrest protocol, which was signed by the applicant, it was explained that the applicant was taken into custody pursuant to the detention order issued the day before by the Ankara State Security Court. Following his arrest, the applicant was brought before the military judge of the Ankara State Security Court and, on his order, was placed in detention on remand.
6.  On 26 November 1998 the applicant filed an appeal against the detention order and requested his release.
7.  On 27 November 1998, having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence, the Ankara State Security Court -composed of three judges including a military judge- dismissed the applicant's appeal.
8.  On 8 December 1998 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 12 July 1999 the applicant was released pending trial.
10. On 24 February 2000 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment.
11.  While the proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation, on 21 December 2000 new legislation (Law No. 4616), which governed the conditional release, suspension of proceedings or execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. Accordingly, on 23 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
12.  On 2 May 2001 the Ankara State Security Court suspended the proceedings against the applicant. According to Law No. 4616, these proceedings would be resumed only if the applicant were to commit an offence of the same or more serious kind within five years of the court's decision to suspend the proceedings.
13.  It appears from the documents in the file that no charges have been brought against the applicant during the period of suspension.
6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Belfast.
7.  His wife died on 31 December 1993, leaving him with two children born in 1984 and 1986. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 11 May 2000 and was rejected on 24 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Enniskillen.
9.  His wife died on 11 November 1998, leaving him with two children born in 1985 and 1987. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 10 May 2000 and was rejected on 18 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
10.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Port Talbot.
11.  His wife died on 16 September 1990, leaving him with a child born in 1990. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 3 May 2000 and was rejected some time after on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Karlovac.
5.  Following her return from Germany in March 1992, the applicant found out that three business premises in her ownership had been blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 1 March 1995 the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings against the State before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.
8.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
9.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. On 19 March 2004 it gave three decisions declaring the applicant's actions inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. On 26 March 2003 the applicant appealed against those decisions to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
10.  On 23 June and 22 October 2004 and 18 January 2005, respectively, the County Court quashed the impugned decisions and remitted the cases to the Municipal Court.
11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 January and 25 May 2005, respectively, the Municipal Court gave judgments dismissing the applicant's claims in two of those proceedings. On 4 April and 20 June 2006 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the first-instance judgments. The applicant then appealed on points of law (revizija) and the two cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
12.  As regards the third set of proceedings, on 23 May 2005 the Municipal Court decided to stay them because the applicant's husband, who was a co-plaintiff in that case, had died.
13.  Meanwhile, on 15 October 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above three sets of civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 25 November 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of her constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded her 12,750 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the proceedings complained of in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 10 December 2004.